old vs. new

Google News lists 633 news articles related to the new Gap logo. The release of the new logo less than a week ago caused an uproar on the web, especially on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Gap smartly listened to the dissatisfaction of their target audience and scrapped the new logo within a few days. This is definitely to their benefit, because a target audience unhappy with the brand's image will be less likely to purchase goods from the Gap.

So why exactly did this rebranding cause such pandemonium on the web? First of all, the new Gap logo was awful. I believe they were shooting for a simple, clean, well-designed look. Instead, the logo is simply boring. Furthermore, it looks like something that could have been created in Microsoft Word by a middle schooler. Additionally, Gap is considered by the target market (including myself) to be a traditional brand. They sell traditional, simple, timeless, cool clothing. The original logo conveyed all of this. It was easily recognizable, as it has been for the past 20 years. To get rid of such a recognizable icon, Gap also got rid of quite a bit of brand equity that went along with the traditional logo.

I assume the reason for the new branding was to give Gap a new, fresh appeal in a market that is less than stellar. Surely they hoped that the new logo would lead new customers to their store, adding more profits. However, a new logo means new bags, store signage, etc., and these extra costs really defeat the purpose in this case.

After all this turmoil, I have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, Gap has some clever ploy hidden from the general public. Perhaps they did this all on purpose. It stirred up so much controversy that the Gap gained a lot of publicity. Maybe they purposefully designed a logo so awful that they had no choice but to take it back, while still enabling the logo to cause enough of a stir to catch the public eye.